Konstantin presented the reasons he'd like the Faceted project
code outside of WTP.

Partially for appearance and visibility as a generally useful
framework, not specific to webtools. Broaden appeal, broaden adoption.

He was pretty direct that the move was to have independent
governance, that in his view of open source development, the individual
person who works on some framework code should have final say in what
they do with that code (that they could not be vetoed by other
committers in the project).

He sees the framework's 2.x code as a fresh start, with his own
API Policy (not WTP's) which would include removing all the currently
deprecated API The current API would be renamed to its own package
namespace. (The current/continued 1.x stream would keep same namespace
and API as it has now, and he'd try to maintain compatibility, having
the old code call out to the new code.)

The new v2 framework would offer some new UI work. clean API (no
deprecated API). No "core api" additions or concepts were mentioned.

He said there were no other adopters, beyond WTP. Some recent
discussions came from PDT (who prereq WTP). He has discussed with CDT,
but Doug said "interesting, but no time or people to do right now".
Konstantin would also like to pitch to PDE team, if he had independent
project.

As to why "more efficient" to do both old and new code in one
project, he mentioned then they could have a common build.

He acknowledged the incubating state of current Faceted Project
project, and thought it would not take much to get graduated. (He
mentioned work on build).

He acknowledged there was not much community in the new
Incubating project,, in terms of adoption, mailing lists, newsgroups,
bugzilla, which he attributes to the "chicken and egg" phenomena.

When asked about having other committers in the new project, he
said he would like very much if others made substantial contributions
to the code (but no one has so far, and no one has shown much
interest).

He said he could not think of any alternatives, such as (my
offhand suggestion) having a sub-sub-project of WTP's Common Tools
project would not solve the governance problem, he said.

Overall, I think the meeting/discussion accomplished what it
should have (increased our understanding, give him a chance to
explain).